The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.

New Laws Effective October 1, 2019

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3696

The Connecticut General Assembly has posted a list of new legislation that is effective on October 1, 2019. Each entry includes links to the full text of the public act, the plain English summary from the Office of Legislative Research, and the bill status page.

In addition, you can view current legislation effective from passage. The Connecticut General Assembly also provides an archive of legislation by effective date going back to October 2007.


Juvenile Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3695

SC20151 - In re Taijha H.-B. (Termination of Parental Rights; Practice Book § 79a-3; appointed attorney declined to pursue an appeal; “The principal issue presented by this certified appeal is whether an appellate review attorney appointed to represent an indigent parent in an appeal from the termination of his or her parental rights must follow the procedure set forth in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), before being permitted to withdraw from representation on the ground that he or she is unable to identify any nonfrivolous basis for appeal. We hold that when, as in the present case, the circumstances are such that the indigent parent has a constitutional right to appellate counsel, counsel may not be permitted to withdraw without, first, demonstrating, whether in the form of an Anders brief or in the context of a hearing, that the record has been thoroughly reviewed for potential meritorious issues, and, second, taking steps sufficient to facilitate review of the case, by the indigent parent and the presiding court, for the purpose of a determination as to whether the attorney accurately concluded that any appeal would be meritless”.)


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3694

AC41528 - Francini v. Riggione ("This appeal arises from a breach of contract and private nuisance action brought by the plaintiffs, Peter J. Francini, Trustee, and Donald W. Anderson, Trustee, on behalf of the Peter J. Francini 1992 Revocable Family Trust, against the defendant, Nicholas A. Riggione. After a five day trial to the court, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their breach of contract claims, but denied their request for injunctive and equitable relief on their private nuisance claim.The defendant appeals from the court's subsequent award, after determining that the plaintiffs were the prevailing party, of approximately $90,000 in attorney's fees. On appeal, the defendant essentially claims that the court abused its discretion in calculating the award of attorney's fees (1) because in awarding fees to the plaintiffs on their claims related to a breach of contract between the parties, a proper analysis of the factors listed in rule 1.5 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct would compel a significant downward departure from the plaintiffs' initial lodestar calculation; and (2) when it awarded fees for a private nuisance claim on which the plaintiffs did not prevail. We agree with the defendant that the court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees for a claim on which the plaintiffs did not prevail. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court in part and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3692

AC40858 - Colon-Collazo v. Cox (Property execution; exemption; "In this appeal from postjudgment proceedings to obtain satisfaction of a civil dissolution judgment, the defendant judgment creditor . . . appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering that certain property of the plaintiff judgment debtor . . . is exempt from a property execution. On appeal, the judgment creditor claims that the court improperly concluded that certain property she sought to levy was exempt because (1) the judgment debtor never filed a claim for an exemption as required by our statutes and case law and (2) its conclusion was not supported by any evidence. We reverse, in part, the judgment of the trial court.")


Insurance Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3693

AC40864 - R & P Realty Co. v. Peerless Indemnity Ins. Co. ("The plaintiffs, R & P Realty Company and Unger's Floor Covering, Inc., appeal from the judgment of the trial court, following a court trial, rendered in favor of the defendant, Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company, on count one of their operative complaint sounding in breach of contract. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in concluding that the defendant did not breach the parties' casualty insurance policy by declining to pay for the increased costs of demolition resulting from the presence of asbestos and lead within the insured property, which the plaintiffs discovered after the defendant had remitted an initial insurance payout to which the parties agreed. We conclude that the record is inadequate for our review, and, accordingly, we decline to review the plaintiffs' claim and, thus, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3691

AC41548 - Ayres v. Ayres ("In this marital dissolution action, the defendant, George Ayres, appeals from the trial court's postdissolution order resolving the motion for contempt filed by the plaintiff, Barbara Ayres. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in interpreting the provision of the parties' separation agreement governing alimony to conclude that (1) the payment of long-term incentives, including restricted stock units and performance stock units, received from his employer were included within the alimony calculation and (2) a severance payment was included within the alimony calculation. We agree with the defendant's claims as to the restricted stock units and severance pay and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39755 - Barber v. Barber ("This postdissolution appeal arises out of motions filed by the plaintiff, Virginia Cha Barber, and the defendant, Atiim Kiambu Barber, regarding the child support provisions of their separation agreement (agreement), which was incorporated into their New York divorce decree. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court, Colin, J., erred by (1) 'rewriting' the agreement with respect to the manner in which the defendant's child support obligation is to be calculated and (2) failing to award her attorney's fees and costs to oppose the defendant's unsuccessful attempt to invalidate a provision of the agreement and to enforce the agreement's default provision regarding add-on child support. On cross appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court, Tindill, J., erred by concluding that the substantive law of New York applied to his motion to modify child support. We affirm the judgments of the trial court with respect to the plaintiff's appeal and dismiss the defendant's cross appeal.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3690

AC41393 - Daley v. Kashmanian ("This appeal stems from a personal injury action brought by the plaintiff, Devonte Daley, against the defendants, Zachary Kashmanian and the city of Hartford (city), seeking damages for the injuries he sustained when Kashmanian, a detective with the Hartford Police Department who had been surveilling the plaintiff in an unmarked police car, allegedly, negligently and recklessly caused the plaintiff to be ejected from his motorcycle. The plaintiff appeals, following a jury trial, from the judgment of the trial court directing a verdict in favor of Kashmanian on the plaintiff's recklessness claim, and from the judgment of the trial court setting aside the jury's verdict on the plaintiff's negligence claim. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) directed a verdict because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Kashmanian engaged in reckless conduct, and (2) set aside the verdict with respect to the negligence claim on the ground that the defendants were entitled to governmental immunity because Kashmanian was engaged in ministerial, not discretionary, conduct. We agree with the plaintiff's first claim only, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court directing a verdict on the recklessness claim and affirm the judgment of the trial court setting aside the verdict on the negligence claim.")

AC41298 - Peek v. Manchester Memorial Hospital ("The plaintiff, Delores Peek, appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendants, Manchester Memorial Hospital and Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that her action was barred by the statute of limitations in General Statutes § 52-584.[1]Because we conclude that the evidence before the trial court demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to when the plaintiff discovered her injury as contemplated by § 52-584, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3687

AC40848 - State v. Bryan (Murder; conspiracy to commit murder; "The defendant, Carlton Bryan, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a (a) and 53a-8, and conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-54a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court erroneously concluded that an unavailable declarant's hearsay statements were admissible as dual inculpatory statements pursuant to § 8-6 (4) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, and (2) the state, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), failed to disclose to him certain internal affairs records relating to Reginald Early, a police sergeant whom the state called as a witness at trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40385 - State v. Shin (Interfering with officer; disorderly conduct; "The self-represented defendant, Yoon Chul Shin, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered by the trial court following a jury trial, of three counts of interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a and one count of disorderly conduct in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182. On appeal, the defendant raises a plethora of claims. Primarily, he claims that (1) he was illegally seized by the police because he was arrested without probable cause or an arrest warrant; (2) the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of any of the crimes with which he was charged because testimony elicited from police officers at trial was fabricated; (3) the court improperly admitted testimony from police officers about statements the defendant made in a video he posted on the Internet; (4) the court abused its discretion in denying his request to excuse a prospective juror for cause during voir dire; (5) the court violated his constitutional right to compulsory process by declining to issue a subpoena; (6) the court improperly found him incompetent to stand trial but restorable before later determining that he was competent; and (7) the court improperly imposed on him as part of his conditional discharge a special condition that he stay out of the state of Connecticut. We dismiss the last claim as moot and, with respect to the remaining claims, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3689

AC41026 - Doan v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that he was not denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. We agree that the court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. Nonetheless, we conclude that the court properly determined that the petitioner was not denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the habeas court").


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3688

AC40559 - Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi (Summary process; "This summary process action involves a lease of commercial premises located at 936-940 Post Road East in Westport (property). The defendants, Nader Daghoghi (Nader), Sassoon Daghoghi (Sassoon) and 940 Post Road East, LLC, doing business as Savoy Rug Gallery (defendant LLC), appeal from a judgment of possession rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Dominick Boccanfuso (Dominick), Crescienzo Boccanfuso (Crescienzo), and Boccanfuso Bros., Inc. (plaintiff corporation). The defendants claim that the trial court (1) applied an incorrect legal standard in determining that they failed to prove their special defense of equitable nonforfeiture; (2) erred in finding that the plaintiffs were unaware of environmental contamination at the property until after July 1, 2014; (3) abused its discretion in finding that the defendants had failed to prove their special defenses of unjust enrichment and violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) abused its discretion by not granting the defendants a continuance so that a witness could testify. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3686

AC20097 - King v. Volvo Excavators AB ("The plaintiff, Donita J. King, individually and as executrix of the estate of Daniel H. King (decedent), appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendants Volvo Group North America, LLC (VGNA), Volvo Construction Equipment North America, LLC (VCENA), and Tyler Equipment Corporation (Tyler Equipment), on claims arising from a workplace accident in which the bucket of an excavator became dislodged and fell on the decedent, causing fatal injuries. On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that the trial court improperly granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff's primary claim on appeal is that the statute of repose applied to her product liability claims, General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 52-577a, is unconstitutional because it creates two classes of claimants—employees who are subject to a ten year statute of repose and nonemployees who are not subject to the ten year statute of repose if the claimant can show that the product was within its useful safe life when the injury occurred. While the defendants' motions for summary judgment were pending before the trial court, the legislature enacted Number 17-97 of the 2017 Public Acts (P.A. 17-97), which combined those two classes of claimants by removing the limitations provision applicable to employees. In its decision on the motions for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that P.A. 17-97 was not retroactive and applied the statute of repose applicable to employees to bar the plaintiff's claims.

We conclude that the trial court improperly rendered judgment in favor of the defendants because the amendment to the statute of repose in P.A. 17-97 retroactively applied to the plaintiff's claims. As a result, we need not address the plaintiff's claim on appeal that General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 52-577a is unconstitutional. Instead, we conclude that the trial court must consider whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the injury occurred during the useful safe life of the product.")




Connecticut Law Journal - September 24, 2019

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3684

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 13, for September 24, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 333: Connecticut Reports (Pages 225 - 282)
  • Volume 333: Orders (Pages 901 - 906)
  • Volume 333: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 193: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 137)
  • Volume 193: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 902)
  • Volume 193: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies



Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3680

AC41364 - State v. Gomes (Assault in second degree; "The defendant, Wagner Gomes, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in omitting from its jury instruction his proposed sentence, "[h]owever, you may consider evidence of the police investigation as it might relate to any weaknesses in the state's case," and, in doing so, deprived him of his right to present a defense of investigative inadequacy. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40657 - State v. Cane (Criminal possession of firearm; criminal possession of ammunition; possession of controlled substance with intent to sell; "The defendant, Robert A. Cane, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of two counts of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1), three counts of criminal possession of ammunition in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1), and one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (b). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence that was obtained in violation of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, (2) improperly granted the state's motion for joinder of the two separate cases against him for trial, and (3) demonstrated judicial bias, thereby violating his right to due process. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3681

AC41220 - Autumn View, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission ("The defendant, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of East Haven, appeals from the decision of the Superior Court, sustaining the appeal of the plaintiffs, Autumn View, LLC (Autumn View), Statewide Construction Corporation, and Vicki Imperato. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the September 27, 2016 affordable housing application filed by the plaintiffs pursuant to § 8-30g was not a new application, (2) the September 27, 2016 application complied with a remand order issued by the Superior Court, (3) evidence regarding the failure to comply with town regulations did not support the defendant's denial of the application, and (4) evidence of how the storm water drainage aspects of the application posed significant dangers to human health and safety did not support the defendant's denial of the application. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")

AC41696 - Putnam Park Apartments, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission ("The plaintiffs, Putnam Park Apartments, Inc. (Putnam Park), and Putnam Hill Apartments, Inc. (Putnam Hill), appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court affirming the decision of the defendant Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Greenwich (commission), which had approved the special permit and site plan applications of the defendant Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc. (Neighbor), to construct a new building on property, owned by the defendant Parish of Christ Church (Church) and leased to Neighbor, abutting the plaintiffs' properties. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) agreed with the commission's interpretation of § 6-94 (b) (1) of the Greenwich building zone regulations (regulations), (2) concluded that the commission properly found that the record contained substantial evidence that Neighbor's proposal was consistent with §§ 6-15 and 6-17 of the regulations, and (3) concluded that § 6-95 of the regulations did not apply to Neighbor's special permit application. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3682

AC40903 - Echeverria v. Commissioner of Correction- (The petitioner’s sole claim on appeal is that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s failure to advise him properly of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.)

AC40904 - King v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that he had received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel, and (2) dismissed the petitioner’s claims that his right to due process was violated by the trial court’s not stating on the record its refusal to accept the petitioner’s pretrial plea agreement. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Reverse Piercing of the Corporate Veil Prohibited

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3679

Our Enforcing Money Judgments Research Guide (Table 9) has been updated to reflect Public Act 19-181, which eliminates Reverse Piercing of the Corporate Veil in Connecticut. In addition, the Public Act Summary states that "[t]his act sets specific conditions that must be met in granting a veil piercing claim to override limitations on a domestic entity interest holder’s liability in connection with the entity’s transactions. (Under the act, a 'domestic entity' is an entity whose internal affairs are governed by Connecticut law.) In doing so, the act generally codifies the 'instrumentality test,' one of two methods Connecticut courts use to determine whether to grant a veil-piercing claim." Below is revised table 9 in the Enforcing Money Judgments Research Guide.

Table 9: Enforcing Money Judgments



Law Library Hours Update - September 19th - September 27th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3678

Thursday, September 19th

  • Putnam Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.
  • Torrington Law Library closes at 2:45 p.m.

Friday, September 20th

  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.

Monday, September 23rd

  • Middletown Law Library closes at 4:15 p.m.

Wednesday, September 25th

  • Middletown Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.


Connecticut Law Journal - September 17, 2019

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3677

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 12, for September 17, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 333: Connecticut Reports (Pages 176 - 224)
  • Volume 333: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 192: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 634 - 863)
  • Volume 192: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


1 2 3